Background: Inguinal hernia repair is a common procedure that general surgeons undertake with different techniques aiming for a better outcome. Aim of the work:Comparison between self-gripping mesh and sutures for mesh fixation in open [Lichtenstein] inguinal repair. Patients and Methods:This study is a prospective trial. Fifty adult males scheduled for inguinal hernia repair were classified into two groups: group A [n=25] underwent inguinal repair with self-gripping mesh; group B [n=25] underwent inguinal repair with mesh fixation using proline sutures. Results:The mean operative time was 37.4 ±13.5 and 48.81±14.7 minutes in groups A and B, respectively. The incidence of seroma, scrotal edema, and wound infection was 4%, 8%, and 8% in the group [A] compared to 12%, 24%, 12% in the group [B], respectively. No recurrence was reported in either group. However, 12% and 80% in groups A and B had mild postoperative pain [p <0.001]. After three months of surgery, no cases of chronic groin pain reported in the group [A] compared to three in the group [B] [p>0.05]. The mean time to return to normal activities in a group [A] was 2.51days and 5.97 days in the group [B] [p<0.001]. Mean pain visual analogue scale [VAS] scores at 6 months were 0.5 [0.4 to 1.5] in the self-gripping mesh group and 8.6 [3.3 to 12.5] in sutured mesh group [p<0.01]. The mean cost of ProGrip mesh was higher than the mean cost of polypropylene mesh [4508 VS 555 LE] [p <0.001]. Conclusion:Lichtenstein open inguinal hernia repair with ProGrip low-density polyester mesh is a safe, with short operative time, simple and effective method for inguinal hernia repair and may improve patient general health, reduce postoperative pain and improve quality of life. However, its high price makes its use questionable in low economic settings.
Introduction In this prospective randomized study, the outcome and the complication rates of loupe-assisted subinguinal varicocelectomy (LASV) are compared with conventional subinguinal varicocelectomy. Patients and methods Between December 2014 and June 2017, 66 patients aged from 20 to 38 years old were enrolled in this study in Al-Azhar University Hospital, New Damietta, and Al-Zahraa University Hospital, Cairo. The patients were randomly subdivided into two groups: group A included 33 patients who underwent LASV using surgical loupes with three times magnification, group B included 33 patients who underwent conventional open subinguinal varicocelectomy. Postoperative complications along with preoperative and postoperative (3 months) seminal parameters were compared between the two groups. Moreover, the number of identified internal spermatic arteries was also compared between the two groups. Results The hydrocele formation was significantly lesser in group A treated by LASV [none of the patients (0%)] than group B treated by conventional subinguinal varicocelectomy (three patients; 9.09%). The recurrence rate was better in group A (one patient; 3.03%) than group B (two patients; 6.06%), but the result was nonsignificant regarding recurrence rate. Testicular hypertrophy does not occur in both groups. The average number of preserved arteries was more in group A than group B (0.95±0.51 in group A vs. 0.88±0.47 in group B). Semen parameters including semen concentration, sperm motility, and percentage of abnormal forms were improved in both groups, but the improvement was nonsignificantly better in group A than group B, so the improvement was nonsignificantly between the two groups, but it was significant between the preoperative and postoperative results within each group. Conclusion LASV is better than conventional open subinguinal varicocelectomy as loupe allows clear visualization of the testicular artery, lymphatics, and small venous channels, resulting in decrease in the incidence of complications, including hydrocele formation, testicular artery injury, and varicocele recurrence.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.